On Point: 26. Juvenile proceedings

State v. Dionicia M., 2010 WI App 134; for Dionicia M.: Andrew Hinkel, SPD Madison Appellate

Recorded Confessions

The juvenile was in custody when she was directed to the locked back seat of a patrol car so that she could be transported back to school after being reported truant; and, because it was feasible under the circumstances to record her ensuing statement, failure to do so rendered it inadmissible.

State v. Carl Morgan, 2009AP74-CR, District III, 7/20/10

court of appeals decision (3-judge, not recommended for publication); for Morgan: Ralph Sczygelski; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Sufficiency of Evidence Review

Review of a denied motion for dismissal at the close of the prosecutor’s case-in-chief is waived where the defendant proceeds to put in a defense. All the evidence, including the defense presentation,

State v. Corey Kleser, 2010 WI 88, affirming in part, reversing in part, 2009 WI App 43; for Kleser: Devon M. Lee, SPD, Madison Appellate; BiC; Resp.; Reply

Reverse Waiver, §§ 938.183(1), 970.032(1) & (2) – Generally

¶69 Nothing in § 970.032(2) places a limitation on the evidence at a reverse waiver hearing so long as the evidence is admissible under the rules of evidence and is relevant to one or more of the three elements set out in the subsection.

State v. Justin H., No. 2009AP2935, District III, 6/29/10

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Justin H.: Leonard D. Kachinsky

¶9 However, even assuming Justin properly preserved a due process argument, we reject it.  Due process principles require that a juvenile against whom a delinquency petition has been filed be given “notice … sufficiently in advance of scheduled court proceedings … set[ting] forth the alleged misconduct with particularity.” State v.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); for Trelijah: Shelley Fite, SPD, Madison Appellate

Delinquency –Lifted Stay, Secure Detention
Trial court’s lifting stay of 4-days’ secure detention “was based on a thorough consideration of the goals of the juvenile justice code, both at the time of disposition and at the time the stay was lifted.”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication); Resp. Br.

Delinquency
Failure to receive discovery until, but not prior to, plea hearing didn’t render latter a nullity; and, under § 938.01(1), the court must liberally construe the juvenile justice code: “Dakota has presented no reason, nor do we see any reason, why his best interest would be served by dismissing the petition with prejudice.”

court of appeals decision (1-judge; ineligible for publication)

Delinquency Petition – Time Limit
Time limit for filing petition continues running during gap between date intake worker requests petition and date request actually filed with DA’s office, therefore this petition  untimely; on remand trial court is to determine “proper remedy,” which may be dismissal, but not necessarily.

court of appeals decision (1-judge; not for publication)

Delinquency – Venue
Delinquency venue is where the juvenile resides, § 938.185(1)(a), which is where the legal custodian establishes the child’s domicile; legal custodian of Jennifer Z. was Taylor Co. Human Services, therefore she resided in Taylor Co.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel – Eliciting Incriminating Testimony
Counsel’s eliciting incriminating testimony, without tactical reason, leading to added count was ineffective.

State v. Corey Kleser, 2009 WI App 43, PFR filed 4/9/09
For Kleser: Robin E. Dorman, SPD Milwaukee Trial; Debra Flynn-Parrino, Devon M. Lee, SPD, Milwaukee Juvenile

Issue/Holding:

¶46      Wisconsin Stat. § 970.032(2) makes no provision for the admission of hearsay at a reverse waiver hearing. Where a statute does not specifically authorize hearsay, it is generally prohibited, see Wis. Stat.

State v. Andrew J.K., 2006 WI App 126

For Andrew J.K.: George M. Tauscheck

Issue/Holding: Where a juvenile, in response to a State’s motion to lift a stay on corrections commitment, stipulated to placement in a local program, his subsequent termination from that program subjected him to a lifting of the stay notwithstanding that the program was not a statutorily authorized dispositional alternative:

¶18      Although the court approved the stipulation,